Report: Fox News Sends Tucker Carlson Cease-and-Desist Letter Over Twitter Show
Carlson producer Justin Wells tweeted that the next show will be on June 13, covering Trump’s indictment.
Axios reported that Fox News sent a cease-and-desist letter to former host Tucker Carlson regarding his new successful Twitter show:
Why it matters: The contract battle between Fox and its former top host — who was taken off the air in April, after the network’s historic Dominion settlement — has mighty repercussions for the conservative media ecosystem.
- With “Tucker on Twitter,” Carlson and his growing production team are working to elevate Elon Musk’s social media site as a news platform.
Details: The cease-and-desist letter has “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” in bold at the top.
What’s happening: Fox is continuing to pay Carlson, and maintains that his contract keeps his content exclusive to Fox through Dec. 31, 2024.
- Carlson is making a First Amendment argument for posting on Twitter, and asserts that Fox has committed material breaches of his contract.
Tucker has released only two shows on Twitter but amassed millions of viewers.
“Doubling down on the most catastrophic programming decision in the history of the cable news industry, Fox is now demanding that Tucker Carlson be silent until after the 2024 election,” Harmeet K. Dhillon, a lawyer for Carlson, told Axios. “Tucker will not be silenced by anyone … He is a singularly important voice on matters of public interest in our country, and will remain so.”
The Daily Caller mentioned the 10-minute show “outperformed Fox News’ broadcasts in the same time slot.”
Carlson producer Justin Wells tweeted that the next show will be on June 13. The host will cover Trump’s indictment.
Next Episode of Tucker on Twitter coming Tuesday: Tucker’s response to the indictment of President Donald Trump
— Justin Wells (@justinbwells) June 11, 2023
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Fox News is making the Roy kids on “Succession” seem competent in comparison.
I am at the point now where when I wake up in the morning, it is a coin toss whether I will be called a racist or a fascist first. And here I thought that I was just being a normal American.
This is a “Hold my Bud Light” moment for Fox News
I would like to know how much is being spent to silence him but more importantly…why is there such a concerted effort to muzzle the guy?
It’s not so much the “how much” as it is the “who.”
Giving his opinion on Twitter is not in any violation.
Tucker should urinate on the letter and mail it back, or is that harsh?
“Nuts!” — Tucker Carlson response to Fox
Something like this can take years to work through the courts, which is exactly the point as far as Fox is concerned. They want him off the board through the election and don’t seem to care if they have to pay for it later.
These are not business decisions. They are entirely political.
I do not think we have enough information. What does Tucker’s contract say? Why couldn’t he sign a contract with an iron-clad non-compete waiver of First Amendment rights in return for an amount of money suitable to him at the date of signing?
Along those lines, how does the fact that Fox News terminated his employment come into play? As far as we know, Carlson did not depart voluntarily.
Sounds like Fox is alleging that they didn’t terminate his employment, they just terminated his show.
I would love to see the reasoning for that.
Why is Fox so intent on committing suicide?
They can’t help themselves. Bottom Line: They are like all the other Left-leaning media outlets.
What was the theme song for MASH? “Suicide is painless”? Maybe not..
Because they are no longer a “conservative” news station. At best they are a GOPe to left leaning network. There is no longer a conservative in charge since Sheldon turn the company over to his lefty children.
Blackrock, I presume.
How can anyone have an opinion on this based on such scanty information?
Seems like an NDA / gag type agreement should be in place before severing employment, not after. Absent that, it’s a KMA agreement.
It becomes clearer everyday that Garland ordered Tucker shut down.
I’m thinking the same.
Man, there must be some horrific news over the horizon. Will it remain out of view?
As far as I know, he had a whole segment already ready to air on Ray Epps.
Trump’s indictment is nice and all, but that’s the bad boy I want to see.
Well I suspect tomorrows programme on Trumps arraignment will be fire 🔥 And as we have come to know, Democrats don’t like it when it’s shoved up them when they aren’t willing participants.
Either Fox has a non-compete clause or not. The contract should be quite clear as to what happens if Tucker is taken off the air.
I don’t know what Fox is doing but this is not the way to get any viewers back. Now I’m even less inclined to watch anything Fox online or go to their website. Either fire the guy or not but to yank it’s most popular host by far off the air and then tell him he can’t talk till after the next election sure doesn’t sound kosher to me. Something is going on behind the scenes and it sounds like the DOJ to me.
Note that it says Fox is still paying him. That would seem to indicate that some sort of agreement is in effect. The question is why take your biggest audience draw off the air and pay him to stay off the air.
“Note that it says Fox is still paying him. That would seem to indicate that some sort of agreement is in effect.”
No, it indicates that their legal stance is that some sort of agreement is in effect.
Which indicates nothing in the real world until some judge looks at it.
His contract should be crystal clear on things and since he has been in the business for decades I would assume it is but maybe it never occurred to anyone that the network would keep it’s largest star off the TV but keep paying him. It’s very strange. If Fox doesn’t want him then they should buy out the contract or dissolve it. The contract most likely has a non-compete clause preventing him from quitting and jumping to a rival network or after the contract expires have a set time, say 1yr, where he can’t move elsewhere. I doubt it takes into account something like Twitter but it might.
Cease and desist letters are sent all the time as a scare tactic and are just ignored. I’m betting Tucker ignores it and dares Fox to sue him so discovery can be made public on, you guessed it, Twitter.
One take I heard today is that the real reason Carlson was so suddenly taken off the air was related to what he was going to broadcast. The full explanation of that remains to be given. Carlson is doing the Twitter “show” to force their hand, make them sue to get him to honor the contract they say they have. That would mean they would have to show justification for the silencing. So far, if they are still paying him, he is still an employee of Fox and thus under their control. Maybe he feels they will fold, rather than go through discovery, etc.
As the saying goes: Opinions are like….. uh, Cadillacs, everyone has one.
Personally, I am bullish on popcorn.
“So far, if they are still paying him, he is still an employee of Fox and thus under their control.”
It hardly takes any effort at all to continue to cut checks to a former employee to promote the legal misimpression that he is still an employee.
I don’t doubt that there is a non compete clause but competition would be jumping to Newsmax or another broadcaster. Offering up his opinion as content on Twitter without reimbursement isn’t commercial competition.
I can’t imagine his contract specifically precludes him from offering up opinion and commentary through non traditional media platforms without reimbursement. In essence Fox is paying him to work for free on Twitter. Very similar to a Football Coach who is fired from X Head Coach job with a few years remaining on the contract. The non compete clauses in those apply to other HC positions and sometimes coordinator positions. In rare cases they cover on the field coaching. None of them cover working for free as an analyst or in an off the field role somewhere else.
This is also the best of both worlds. Tucker fully keeps his integrity and autonomy while we go into realms that force us to know what the other side is saying and thinking instead of echo chambers.
Assuming that his non-compete is in fact worded so as to refer to a broadcasting company, a news company, or a network et al, and that Tucker is still being paid by Fox, I view it as a Best-Of-Both-Worlds deal for him.
He can easily afford not to take any payment for voicing his opinion as a private citizen since Fox is paying for it.
More Popcorn, indeed!
Darn it Danny – you type too fast!
Obviously a first step as required by the contract before going to court, filing a lawsuit and moving for injunctive relief. The question to me is, does Murdoch have the cojones to file such a suit, which there is a high chance he could lose and be further publicly embarrassed.
Lawsuit = discovery. If Fox files one the actual reason for Fox killing Tucker’s show becomes public, among other damning things. Lawyers often counsel against suing because of the threat of discovery. It’s possible they think Tucker will fold from a mere threat but from the little I know that isn’t in his character.
He also has a ton of cash and nothing to lose by letting it play out. If Fox sues him, he sues back. Discovery and all it’s dirty little secrets comes out. If Fox loses they will look like vindictive fools. If Tucker does then he just gives up the last year of his current contract and it’s pay or is forced to abide by it. This is a contract fight and as Tucker said, 1st Amendment. Tucker is claiming I think that Twitter is not a media outlet or rival network and Fox can’t stop him from speaking. Interesting to see how this plays out.
Not being reported on this issue:
Tucker’s contract with FOX specifically makes clear that he is free to post on Twitter.
Doesn’t seem to have anticipated the current situation, but too bad.
I’m sure FOX News has a pretty good legal team.
However, Tucker’s not stupid, and I’d be shocked if he doesn’t have his own lawyer(s), who have almost certainly gone over his contract with a fine comb and told him exactly what he’s allowed to do. And I have little doubt he’s acting well within the bounds of the contract.
And that’s to say nothing about the alleged breaches of contract that would invalidate many/most of its provisions.
Setting aside the moral/ethical/legal issues with controlling anyone’s right to speech, if FOX News didn’t have the foresight to draw up a contract that would actually silence an employee they want silenced, that’s their problem. (Conversely, if the contract is airtight and Tucker is violating it, that’s his problem. But it sounds like that’s not the case.)